Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57 (2021) 126939

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug

Carbon sequestration and storage potential of urban green in residential

yards: A case study from Helsinki
Mari Ariluoma a, 1, Juudit Ottelin b, Ranja Hautamäki a, *, Eeva-Maria Tuhkanen c, Miia Mänttäri d
a
Aalto University, Department of Architecture, Otakaari 1X, PO Box 11000, Finland
b
Aalto University, Department of Built Environment, Otakaari4, 02150, Espoo, Finland
c
Natural Resources Institute Finland, Itäinen Pitkäkatu 4 A, 20520, Turku, Finland
d
Natural Resources Institute Finland, Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790, Helsinki, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: J Jun Yang Cities have been identified as key actors in climate change mitigation. Nature based carbon sinks have been
suggested as a means of mitigating the greenhouse gas emissions of cities. Although there are several studies on
Keywords: the carbon storage and sequestration (CSS) of urban green, the role of residential sites is not fully understood. In
Biochar addition, the carbon storage of soils is often excluded. Also the implications for planning require more attention.
Carbon sink
This study estimates the CSS potential of trees and biochar in urban residential yards and identifies effective
Green infrastructure
means to enhance it. Moreover, the study discusses the results at the city scale. The research is based on a case
LCA
Urban trees study in Helsinki, Finland, and applies i-Tree planting tool to assess the current and potential life cycle CSS of the
Urban yards case area. The results reveal that trees and the mixing of biochar into growing medium can increase the CSS
considerably. The CSS potential of the case area is 520 kg CO2 per resident during 50 years. The added biochar
accounts for 65 % of the capacity and the biomass of trees accounts for 35 %. At the city scale, it would lead to
330 000 t CO2 being stored during 50 years. The findings suggest that green planning could contribute more
strongly to climate change mitigation by encouraging the use of biochar and the planting of trees, in addition to
ensuring favourable growing conditions.

1. Introduction literature. Urban green infrastructure includes all the natural,

1.1. Background
The urban population and the built-up area are increasing steadily in
Europe and rapidly globally. The investments in new infrastructure and
buildings, and the residents’ demand for goods and services are major
drivers of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other environ­
mental burdens (see e.g. a review by Ottelin et al., 2019). However,
cities are the drivers of human development and sustainable innovations
as well (Joss, 2015). In addition, urban areas are part of the global
carbon cycle and provide ecosystem services for their residents and
visitors (Niemelä et al., 2010; IPBES, 2019).
Carbon sinks inside and outside city boundaries have been suggested
as a means of mitigating the global GHG impacts of cities (Dhakal, 2010;
Shigeto et al., 2012; Lazarus et al., 2013; Paloheimo and Salmi, 2013).
The importance of urban green has been highlighted in previous
semi-natural and artificial networks of ecological systems in urban and
peri-urban areas, such as forests, parks, community gardens, private
yards and street trees (Tzoulas et al., 2007; Gómez-Baggethun and
Barton, 2013; Lähde and Di Marino, 2019). While the carbon seques­
tration of urban green has been found to be small compared to the
anthropogenic emissions of cities (Nowak et al., 2013; Velasco et al.,
2016), in small rural municipalities with large forest areas, the carbon
sequestration of trees within the municipal boundaries can actually
exceed the total carbon footprint of the residents (Paloheimo and Salmi,
2013).
Urban green provides multiple ecosystem services, such as carbon
sequestration and storage (CSS) (Nowak and Crane, 2002) and climate
change adaptation (Keeley et al., 2013). It has also been recognised in
national and international policies. The EU has adopted a Strategy on
Green Infrastructure in order to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem
services in both rural and urban settings (EC, 2013) and is currently

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mari.ariluoma@aalto.fi (M. Ariluoma), juudit.ottelin@aalto.fi (J. Ottelin), ranja.hautamaki@aalto.fi (R. Hautamäki), eeva-maria.tuhkanen@
luke.fi (E.-M. Tuhkanen), miia.manttari@luke.fi (M. Mänttäri).
1
First author.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126939
Received 6 May 2020; Received in revised form 20 November 2020; Accepted 7 December 2020
Available online 19 December 2020
1618-8667/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Ariluoma et al.
promoting Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities (EC, 2018;
IUCN, 2019). Accordingly, several countries and cities have developed
strategies and applications to support urban green infrastructure and
nature-based solutions (NBSs), especially related to biodiversity and
climate change adaptation (Faivre et al., 2017; Urban Nature Atlas,
2020). NBSs are defined as solutions to societal challenges, inspired and
supported by nature, which simultaneously provide environmental, so­
cial and economic benefits (EC, 2018; Faivre et al., 2017). In the urban
context, NBSs mean solutions that bring nature, and natural features and
processes into cities.
Residential yards are an important part of urban green, and an
increasing amount of studies highlight the importance of private resi­
dential greenery for the provision urban ecosystem services (Tahvonen
and Airaksinen, 2018; Haase et al., 2019). Though still rarely analysed
and mapped as part of the urban green, some studies have indicated that
more than one third of the urban green space consists of private resi­
dential green in a typical European city (Haase et al., 2019). Yet there
are limited tools for steering the planning process of the private lot and
thus the quality of the green infrastructure of courtyards. Common
neighbourhood sustainability standards, such as LEED, BREEAM and
DGNB systems include criteria for green infrastructure and landscape,
but they are only partly mandatory and focus on specific aspects (Pedro
et al., 2019). One tool specifically created to address green infrastruc­
ture elements in the courtyards is Green Factor (Juhola, 2018). Green
Factor is a planning tool and a sustainability metric that is used for
increasing both the quality and quantity of green elements on private
properties. It has previously been applied in several cities at least in
Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany and USA and many new cities are
planning to start using the tool in the near future. However, none of
these planning tools address specifically carbon sequestration and
storage but instead, focus on other benefits of urban green.
Fig. 1. The location of the case area Kuninkaantammi in Helsinki, Finland (© OpenStreetMap contributors).
2
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57 (2021) 126939
1.2. Urban green as carbon sinks
Several studies have assessed the current carbon storage and annual
carbon sequestration of urban forests within case cities in temperate
climates (Nowak and Crane, 2002; Davies et al., 2011; Strohbach and
Haase, 2012; Muñoz-Vallés et al., 2013; Nowak et al., 2013). Urban
forests include all trees in urban areas (i.e. urban trees), and most studies
are not differentiating between forest trees and planted urban trees (see
e.g. Roy et al., 2012; Nowak et al., 2013). These studies have found that
cities provide important carbon storages and also carbon sinks. The net
carbon sequestration of urban forests is positive for growing forests but
slows down as the forest matures (Nowak et al., 2013). However, the
maintenance of urban trees also cause emissions and thus, forest-like
areas with less intensive maintenance are more effective than
park-like trees or street trees (McPherson and Simpson, 2002; Strohbach
et al., 2012; Riikonen et al., 2017). Several scholars have discussed the
possibility of increasing the carbon sequestration of urban vegetation
through policy initiatives (Davies et al., 2011; Muñoz-Vallés et al., 2013)
or careful planning (Niemelä et al., 2010).
It should be noted that the CSS of urban trees is temporary in the long
term, since the sequestration and storage process is reversible. The
carbon storage of urban forests may decrease if, for example, the trees
are cut or die. The effectiveness of using temporary CSS to mitigate
climate change has been questioned as well (Korhonen et al., 2002;
Kirschbaum, 2006). In both carbon footprinting (Levasseur et al., 2011)
and life cycle assessment (LCA) (Brandão et al., 2013) contexts, it has
been highlighted that the benefits of temporary carbon storage depend
on the chosen time horizon. Levasseur et al. (2011) emphasised that
temporary mitigation activities should not be favoured over the per­
manent avoidance of fossil fuel emissions.
Research on the carbon sequestration of urban trees usually excludes
the carbon storage of urban soils. Only a few studies on urban soil carbon
M. Ariluoma et al.
Fig. 2. The case area in Kuninkaantammi and the three yards: 1= Fannynkallio, 2= Sienakuja and 3= Taidemaalarinkatu (City of Helsinki, 2013).
dynamics have been published and data on urban soil carbon is scanty
(Lorenz and Lal, 2015). However, soil has a significant impact: Churkina
et al. (2010) demonstrated that 64 % of the carbon storage in the human
settlements is attributed to soil, 20 % to vegetation, 11 % to landfills and
5% to buildings. Moreover, other scholars (Kaye et al., 2005; Golu­
biewski, 2006; Lindén et al., 2020) have pointed out that soils in urban
parks and lawns can store large amounts of carbon, which could highly
exceed the amount stored in native grasslands, agricultural fields and
boreal forests. In particular, long-term terrestrial carbon storage occurs
in soils (Lorenz and Lal, 2015). In order to efficiently mitigate climate
change, carbon must remain stored for a much longer time than it can be
stored in certain materials, for example, in wood material. Thus, as soil
has a high capacity and potential for carbon storage, this needs to be
addressed in the planning and design of urban green.
The carbon storage of urban soils can be further increased by adding
biochar in the growing medium (Ghosh et al., 2012; Scharenbroch et al.,
2013). Biochar is highly stable organic carbon residue that is produced
during biomass pyrolysis, meaning a process of temperature decompo­
sition of organic material in the absence of oxygen. In soil, biochar may
improve water holding capacity and physical structure, absorb nutrients
and affect microbial activity and mycorrhizal growth positively, which
have benefits for plant growth (Atkinson et al., 2010). In urban or
engineered soils, the effects of biochar on soil processes depend, how­
ever, on the properties of biochar, soil, climate and soil fauna (Hagner
et al., 2016) and the effects on plant growth may vary with experimental
conditions and plant species (Jeffery et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2013).
Biochar represents a potentially valuable sink for carbon as it is highly
stable in soil environments (Gaunt and Lehmann, 2008; Meschewski
et al., 2019). Due to the multiple benefits, the use of biochar is growing
in popularity for managing urban soils, especially for urban trees
(Scharenbroch et al., 2013). For example, the city of Stockholm has
started to use park and garden waste to produce biochar that is applied
3
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57 (2021) 126939
to urban growing media and structural soils for tree plantings ((City of
Stockholm, 2016)
1.3. Aims
As described above, the CSS potential of residential yards has not
been studied separately before. The carbon sequestration and storage of
trees have been identified as the main contributor to the CSS of green
infrastructure in previous studies. The carbon binding capacity and
storage are directly dependant on the leaf area and biomass of a plant,
and thus over the different vegetation types, trees contribute to carbon
storage highest. In addition, biochar amendment has been identified as
an effective means of adding the carbon storage of urban soils. There­
fore, the aim of the study is to estimate the CSS potential of trees and
biochar amended in growing medium (or top soil) in residential yards,
and to identify effective means to increase carbon sink and storage po­
tential of yards. Moreover, the study discusses the significance of the
results at the city scale. In addition, the study discusses how to support
sustainability planning tools for urban green in general, from the
perspective of climate change mitigation.
The research is based on a case study in Helsinki, Finland and
combines a simple screening life cycle assessment (LCA), a publicly
available i-Tree planting tool developed by the USDA Forest Service, and
scenario modelling. First, the cumulative CSS of urban trees during fifty
years was assessed in the case area. Then, an optimal scenario was
created for the CSS potential of the case yards. The scenario was based
on optimising the CSS by both increasing the amount of trees and the
carbon stored in the soil. Finally, the implications of the findings at the
city scale were roughly estimated and discussed.
M. Ariluoma et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57 (2021) 126939

Table 1 2.2. Research design and system boundary selection

A description of the case area and its three sites. The figures in the table are
based on the construction drawings and the Green Factor calculation documents A simple screening LCA was used to assess the CSS potential of the
of the yards. residential yards of the case area. In screening LCA, the main processes
Site 1) 2) 3)Taidemaa- Total or causing environmental impacts during the life cycle of a product or
Fannynkallio Sienakuja larinkatu average service are identified, and then the environmental impacts are esti­
Area (ha) 0.49 0.31 0.38 1.2 mated. The study focuses only on one environmental impact category:
Area covered by 0.21 0.12 0.21 0.54 climate change, which is measured as sequestered and stored CO2.
buildings (ha) Based on previous literature, it was assumed that trees (Davies et al.,
Size of the yard 0.28 0.19 0.17 064
(ha)
2011; Strohbach and Haase, 2012; Nowak et al., 2013) and soil (Chur­
Size of the podium 0.06 0.04 0 0.1 kina et al., 2010; Lorenz and Lal, 2015) are the most important com­
yard (ha) ponents in the CSS of green infrastructure. The CO2 emissions caused by
Yard area of the 57 61 45 54 the construction, maintenance and the end-of-life of the green infra­
total area (%)
structure were excluded. These emissions have been found to be low
Space available 1024 1113 610 2747
for planting compared to the carbon sequestration ability of urban trees in the long
(m2) term (Strohbach et al., 2012). However, it should be noted that several
Floor space (m2) 7000 3800 5200 16,000 factors, such as maintenance practices, soil and growth media type and
Number of trees 22 24 13 59 planting type, may affect the carbon emissions caused by the construc­
Number of trees 47 80 34 51
tion and maintenance phases. During the first ten to twenty years from
per hectare
planting, when the carbon sequestration of urban trees is relatively low,
the emissions caused by construction and maintenance may offset the
2. Materials and methods CSS benefits. For example, a recent case study from Finland highlights
that the carbon losses from typically used growth media for street trees
2.1. The case area and research material are higher than the CSS of young street trees during the first decades
(Riikonen et al., 2017). However, the growing conditions for street and
The case area is located in a new residential area called Kunin­ yard trees usually differ, yards typically resembling more a situation in
kaantammi in northern Helsinki, Finland, (Fig. 1) and it is close to large parks. Another study, made in USA, found that maintenance, especially
urban green areas (Central Park in Helsinki). The case area represents a pruning of trees and irrigation, resulted remarkable emissions that can
relatively high density new development with 3–6-storey apartment be reduced by changing maintenance practices (McPherson et al., 2015).
buildings and about 200 dwellings per hectare. It is a typical new However, usually pruning and irrigation are done in very limited
housing area and exemplifies a common housing typology in Finland. In amount in Finnish green space maintenance, especially in yards. These
Helsinki, overall, 85,6% of the population live in apartment buildings impacts were not considered here because of the selected scope, see
(Helsinki Region Trends, 2017). The aim in the planning of the area has below, a relatively low impact in the long term and the variation in
been to create a green urban housing area and special effort has been put practices that can differ a lot in different countries and even between
on the sustainable stormwater management. different yards. The selected time span of the study is 50 years.
The case area covers three sites and their yards (see Fig. 2 and The aim of the study is to assess the CSS potential of trees and added
Table 1), which were planned in 2016 and have been built in 2019. The biochar alone, keeping all other things equal. Thus, the scope of the
total area of the case area is 1.2 ha, total floor space is 16 000 m2 and the study reflects a simple comparative situation: a) an urban yard with
estimated population will be 400 residents. The yards are relatively vegetation (specified later) or b) an urban yard without vegetation (e.g.
large, 1700 m2, 1900 m2 and 2800 m2 in size (see Table 1 for more stone pavement or similar) (Fig. 3). However, no actual reference case
details). Two of the yards are partly podium courtyards, (i.e. there is was modelled, as a relevant reference case would have been difficult to
underground parking below the yard) the podium covering approxi­ define. Instead, it was assumed that the construction, maintenance and
mately 1000 m2 of the total yard area (see Appendix A). The Green end-of-life related emissions are similar in size in all cases and were
Factor tool, developed for the city of Helsinki, was applied in their excluded from the assessment. In reality, the amount of emissions would
planning. The background documents of the Green Factor tool, partic­ depend on the selected construction materials and methods, and main­
ularly plant lists and landscape construction drawings were used as the tenance and waste management practices, which can vary a lot in an
main research material. urban context (see the limitations section for further discussion).
Regarding vegetation, only the biomass of trees was included and the

Fig. 3. System boundary selection.

4
M. Ariluoma et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57 (2021) 126939

Fig. 4. Research design.

5
M. Ariluoma et al.
Fig. 5. The monthly average temperatures and average precipitation (1981-2010) of Helsinki (source: the Finnish Meteorological Institute) and Augusta (source: US
Climate Data).
biomass of other vegetation, such as shrubs, lawns, perennials and green
roofs were not considered. Previous literature has revealed that trees
have the highest ability for carbon sequestration because of the large
biomass whereas the impact of other urban greenery is small (Davies
et al., 2011; Muñoz-Vallés et al., 2013). However, the quality and the
depth of the growing medium of other vegetation types still plays role
and therefore all vegetation types impact on the overall carbon storage
potential. In particular, a significant increase in the carbon storage is
achieved by adding biochar to the growing media of all planting types.
This was taken into account in the scenario models of the study (see
Table 5 for details).The quality of the growth media would affect
especially the potential carbon loss from the growing media in the
beginning (after the construction), compost being a better solution than
peat (Riikonen et al., 2017). However, we assumed that in the long term
this loss would be compensated by the carbon accumulation in the soil
(Setälä et al., 2016, Lindén et al., 2020). Due to uncertainties and lack of
data the soil carbon sequestration was not taken into account in the
scenario modeling, but estimation of the potential long term impact of
soils have been presented in discussion. The system boundary selection
of the study is illustrated in Fig. 3, and the overall research design in
Fig. 4.
2.3. Assessment of the CSS of the trees of the case area
The freely available i-Tree planting tool (v.1.1.3; https://planting.it
reetools.org/), created by the USDA Forest Service, was used to assess
the amount of carbon (kg CO2) sequestered by the trees of the case area
during 50 years. The 50-year time span was selected because it is
common in the LCA of buildings and has been used by e.g. Strohbach
et al. (2012) for an urban park.
The purpose of the study is not to offer a detailed case study of the
CSS of the trees but rather to capture the lowest and highest limits of the
possible CSS of the case area both as it is now and as it could be with the
optimal number of trees and added biochar. Thus, only a simple
screening method was needed for the assessment of the CSS. For this
purpose, the i-Tree planting tool was selected (the USDA Forest Service,
2019). However, i-Tree planting is currently only adjusted to the climate
conditions of US. Thus, the city of Augusta in Maine, in the US, was used
to represent the weather conditions in Helsinki, Finland.
The climate of Augusta is similar to that of Helsinki, but there are
differences as well (Fig. 5). In particular, the annual precipitation is
higher in Augusta. Thus, the model is likely to overestimate the biomass
growth and the carbon sequestration in the case area in Helsinki to a
minor extent. This was taken into account in the interpretation of the
results.
The i-Tree planting tool includes both the above- and below-ground
biomass of trees. The user enters the number of the different tree species,
the sizes of the trees at planting, information on the distance of the trees
6
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57 (2021) 126939
to the nearest building and its direction in relation to them, the condi­
tion of the trees, the amount of sun and shade, estimated mortality and
the project lifetime. In addition, it is possible to enter information
related to the energy consumption of the buildings in order to estimate
the GHG emissions avoided due to energy savings. This was not included
since the energy saving modelling is not adjusted to the Nordic
conditions.
In the designs for the case area, there are 59 trees in total, mainly
Scots pines (Pinus sylvestris L.), apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh.) and
European mountain ashes (Sorbus aucuparia L.) (Table 2). The species
proposed for the case area are typical planted urban trees in Finland.
Most of the species are included in the i-Tree planting tool as well. When
the exact species were not found, the nearest taxon was used (see Table 2
for details). It was assumed that the trees to be planted will be in good
condition. The recommendations of the city of Helsinki to define the size
of the trees at the time of planting were applied: the diameter at breast
height (DBH) was 3.5 cm for Malus domestica, Acer tataricum L. and
Sorbus aucuparia; DBH was 4 cm for Pinus sylvestris; DBH was 4.1 cm for
Prunus pensylvanica L. f.; and DBH was 4.7 cm for Betula pendula Roth.
The possible range of the carbon sequestration of the area was estimated
by changing the growing conditions (the direction of the nearest
building, the amount of sun and shade) and the mortality rate in the i-
Tree planting tool.
Previous studies have revealed that the mortality rate of the trees
significantly affects carbon sequestration (Morani et al., 2011; Stroh­
bach et al., 2012). It has also been found that the mortality rate of urban
trees varies a lot. Young and small trees have been found to have
particularly high mortality among urban trees (Nowak et al., 2004),
especially street trees (Roman et al., 2014). In the conditions of the case
sites, the mortality rate of public trees maintained by the city is probably
lower than in these previous studies, because in public plantings there is
two years’ guarantee for maintenance and replacement if needed in the
contracts. There is, however, no data available on mortality rates in
Finland. The case study by Nowak et al. (2004) from Baltimore, in the
US, revealed that in addition to the tree species, size and condition, land
Table 2
The trees of the case area entered in the i-Tree planting tool.
Species scientific name Species Number of trees
Acer tataricum L. subsp. ginnala Amur maple 1
Malus domestica Borkh. Apple tree 16
Sorbus aucuparia L.** European mountain ash 12
Prunus pensylvanica L.f. *** Pin cherry 8
Pinus sylvestris L. Scots pine 18
Betula pendula Roth Silver birch 4
Total 59
**
Includes 3 Swedish whitebeams, Sorbus intermedia.
***
Includes 2 sour cherries, Prunus cerasus.
M. Ariluoma et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57 (2021) 126939

Table 3 vegetation is small in carbon sequestration (Davies et al., 2011). In order

The carbon sequestration ability of different urban tree species (t CO2 seques­ to select the tree species with the highest sequestration ability, the i-Tree
tered by one tree in good condition during 50 years, i-Tree planting, location: planting tool was used to compare the different tree species growing in
Augusta, Maine). The compass points refer to the direction of the tree in relation the site area (Table 3). Lime trees (Tilia spp.) were included in the
to the nearest building. comparison since they are a common urban tree species group in
Species Species South, East or North, Average Finland, although not planted in the case area. Based on the comparison,
scientific name full sun West, full three species to be used in the optimal carbon sequestration scenario
partial sun shade
were selected: the apple tree, the Scots pine and the European mountain
Acer tataricum Amur maple 1.6 0.9 0.5 1.0 ash (which particularly excels in partial sun and full shade).
subsp.
In the scenario modelling, the aim was to create feasible landscape
ginnala
Malus Apple tree 2.7 0.9 0.5 1.2 designs that correspond to the requirements of the area. The designs
domestica took into consideration the limitations of the sites for planting trees, for
Sorbus European 1.3 1.1 0.8 1.1 example, underground car parking, the growing conditions (sun and
aucuparia mountain shade) and the recommendations for the planting distances of urban
ash
trees (the distance from buildings and other trees). Trees were not
Prunus Pin cherry 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4
pensylvanica placed in the podium yard area, where the limited soil space would limit
Pinus sylvestris Scots pine 2.5 0.9 0.5 1.2 the lifetime and size of the trees and thus their carbon sequestration
Betula pendula Silver birch 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 potential. Moreover, other functions of the yards (such as offering
Tilia spp. Lime 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.7
routes, use as playgrounds and use for urban farming) were taken into
consideration, including their spatial requirements and maintained the
Table 4 functions of the original designs (see Appendix A). Based on the scenario
The trees of the optimal test scenario entered in the i-Tree planting tool. designs, 36 % of the total yard area is available for green planting in the
yards 1 and 2 and 58 % in the yard 3 (see Table 1). These boundary
Species scientific name Species Number of trees
conditions significantly limited the number of trees, increasing them by
Malus domestica Apple tree 16 only 1–6 big trees and 1–5 small trees per yard (Table 4). The definition
Sorbus aucuparia European mountain ash 22
Pinus sylvestris Scots pine 44
of big and small trees is based on the Finnish planning guidelines
Total 82 (InfraRYL, 2010), in which big trees are taller than 10 m at maturity.
Illustrations of the scenario designs are presented in the appendix.
Considering the potential of biochar to increase the carbon storage of
use also affects the mortality. In their study, trees in transportation, urban soils, it was decided to test a scenario of adding biochar to the
commercial and industrial areas had the highest annual mortality rates topsoil and exploring how that would affect the carbon storage potential
(10–20 %) whereas trees in medium- to low-density residential areas of the yards (compared to the impact of the number of trees). As the
had a low annual mortality rate (2.2 %). starting point, the amount of topsoil required for the planting in the
In the i-Tree planting tool, it is possible to adjust the mortality rate of scenario designs was calculated, following the general quality specifi­
the planting project. Based on previous literature on urban tree mor­ cations for infrastructure construction in Finland (InfraRYL, 2010),
tality, three annual mortality rates were selected to test their impact on which give recommendations for the depth of the growing medium for
carbon sequestration: low (1%), medium (2%) and high (6%). In other different planting types. According to the recommendation of a Finnish
words, during the 50-year life cycle of the case area, 39 %, 64 % and 95 producer of garden biochar, approximately 15 % of the total volume of
% of the originally planted trees will die respectively. The dead trees are the topsoil could be biochar if it would be mixed into the soil during
replaced with saplings in all scenarios. In reality, the trees planted in the construction. In the scenario modelling, three concentrations of biochar
case area have a maintenance guarantee for their first two years. were tested: the lower limit (10 %), the medium limit (15 %) and the
upper limit (20 %) (Table 5). It was assumed that biochar can be used in
2.4. The creation of the optimal test scenario all vegetated areas, including green roofs. In addition, it was assumed,
on the basis of previous research (Ghosh et al., 2012; Scharenbroch
In order to explore the potential maximum CSS, an optimal test sce­ et al., 2013), that the biochar improves the condition of the trees from
nario was created. Alternative plans for the three case yards were pro­ good to excellent, and reduces the annual tree mortality rate from medium
duced to test how much the landscape design affects the CSS potential. (2%) to low (1%). Biochar has been found to improve soil quality (Ghosh
In the scenario designs the aim was to maximize the number of trees et al., 2012) and to improve the water holding capacity of the soil, which
since previous literature has suggested that the role of other urban

Table 5
The biochar added in the growing medium in the optimal test scenario. The classification of vegetation types is based on the elements used in the Green Factor tool (The
city of Helsinki, 2018) and the depth of growing medium in the Finnish green planning guidelines. The figures include all the three case yards.
Vegetation type planting area (m2) depth of growing medium growing medium (m3) biochar 10 % (kg)* biochar 15 % (kg)* biochar 20 % (kg)*

large trees 44 0.8 35.2 1,056 1,584 2,112

small trees 38 0.6 22.8 684 1,026 1,368
shrubs 932 0.4 372.8 11,184 16,776 22,368
perennials 525 0.4 210 6,300 9,450 12,600
meadow 478 0.2 95.6 2,868 4,302 5,736
lawn 812 0.2 162.4 4,872 7,308 9,744
green roof *** 565 0.1 56.5 1,695 25,42.5 3,390
TOTAL 955.3 28,659 429,88.5 57,318
kg C (biochar)** 24,360 36,540 48,720
kg CO2 90,223 135,334 180,446
*
specific density 300 kg/m3.
**
the carbon content of biochar 85 %.
***
green roofs are located mainly on the small single-storey buildings, see Appendix A.

7
M. Ariluoma et al.
may increase the survival of the planted trees in limited soil volume.
3. Results
3.1. The CSS of the trees in the case area
The trees of the case area would sequester a total of 38 t CO2 during
50 years if the trees were located in partial sun and if the mortality rate
was medium, which is a realistic scenario (Fig. 6). This equals 95 kg CO2
sequestered per resident and 2.4 kg CO2/ m2 of floor space during the
whole 50 years. If the trees were in full sun, the carbon sequestration
would be more than doubled, reaching up 81 t CO2 during the 50 years.
However, this is an unlikely scenario in the urban context. In practice,
the buildings surrounding urban trees usually cast shade on them for at
least some part of the day. If the trees were in full shade, the total
sequestration would drop to 25 t CO2.
In the scenarios, a medium annual tree mortality (2%) was used. The
mortality rate affects the carbon sequestration significantly as well
(Fig. 7). With low tree mortality (1%), the carbon sequestration in­
creases to 44 t CO2 during 50 years (in partial sun). Respectively, high
tree mortality (6%) decreases it to 31 t CO2.
3.2. The optimal CSS potential of the case area
Optimising the number of trees and the tree species (see the methods
section for details) would increase the total carbon sequestration of the
trees in the case area by 95 % during 50 years (Fig. 8). It should be noted
that in the optimal test scenario, it is assumed that the added biochar in
growing medium improves the condition of the trees from good to
excellent and reduces the annual tree mortality rate from medium (2%) to
low (1%). However, the sun and shade conditions are difficult to change
Fig. 6. The cumulative carbon sequestration (t CO2) of the trees in the case area
during 50 years in sunlit conditions (with a medium mortality rate).
Fig. 7. The cumulative carbon sequestration (t CO2) of the trees in the case area
during 50 years according to the mortality rate (in partial sun).
8
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57 (2021) 126939
in urban settings, and thus the trees are assumed to be in partial sun even
in the optimal test scenario.
Adding biochar to growing medium increases the carbon storage
significantly (Fig. 9). In the optimal test scenario of the study, 15 % of
the total volume of growing medium was biochar. In addition, the
impact of 10 % (lower limit) and 20 % (upper limit) biochar concen­
trations was tested. When the added biochar was taken into account, the
full amount of sequestered and stored carbon was 208 t CO2 after 50
years in the optimal test scenario, composed of 73 t CO2 sequestered by
trees and 135 t CO2 stored as biochar in soil. The amount is equal to 520
kg CO2 per resident.
The result demonstrates that, in addition to the number of trees, the
amount of topsoil in the yard, which results from the planting type, has a
major impact on the carbon storage potential of the yard. Though the
total number of trees in the scenario designs was not radically larger
than in the original designs, there were more planting areas, which
resulted in a larger amount of productive topsoil and thus a potentially
larger amount of added biochar.
4. Discussion and conclusion
4.1. The implications of the findings at the city level
In the baseline scenario, the trees of the case area would sequester a
total of 38 t CO2 in 50 years, which equals 95 kg CO2 sequestered per
resident and 2.4 kg CO2/ m2 of floor space during the whole 50 years.
For comparison, the average carbon footprint of the residents in the
Helsinki metropolitan area is 10 t CO2-eq/year per capita (Ottelin et al.,
2018a), and the construction of a typical apartment building can cause
730 kg CO2-eq/ m2 when the embodied emissions of construction ma­
terials are taken into account (Säynäjoki et al., 2017). Although the CSS
Fig. 8. The cumulative carbon sequestration (CO2 t) of the trees of the case area
during 50 years in the optimal test scenario compared to the baseline.
Fig. 9. The cumulative CSS (t CO2) of the case area during 50 years in the
optimal test scenario.
M. Ariluoma et al.
potential of residential yards is low compared to the annual carbon
footprints of the residents (even in the optimal test scenario of the
study), it might be significant at the city level. To illustrate, if all resi­
dents of Helsinki had (on average) a similar carbon sink and storage in
their yards as the residents of the case area in the optimal test scenario
(meaning 520 kg CO2 per capita during 50 years), it would come to 330
000 t CO2.
Of course in practice, there are several limitations. The residential
density of the case area does not necessarily reflect the average density
in Helsinki, and the amount of residents varies also with time.
Furthermore, the amount of biochar that can be added and the number
of trees that can be planted on the existing yards are limited. However,
particularly in new residential areas, the full potential could be ach­
ieved. With some caution, the result is also generalizable to other Eu­
ropean cities.
4.2. Additional impacts of soil carbon release and sequestration
In the scenarios, the natural flows of soil carbon were excluded.
Urban soils can be a remarkable carbon storage, but the long term
sequestration in urban soils is difficult to estimate, especially in private
yards. However, studies made in urban parks in cold climates might give
a good reference. Setälä et al. (2016) found that in cold climates carbon
storage of young parks is 18,9 – 21,4 kg C / m2, depending on the
vegetation type, and for the old parks the figures are 23,4 – 35,5 kg C /
m2 (the higher figures are for parks with evergreen trees). This means an
increase of 4,5 – 14,1 kg C / m2. For the 2747 m2 of planted area in the
case sites a total increase of 12,3 – 38,7 t C (51,9 – 146,4 t CO2) would be
reached. Respectively, Lindén et al. (2020) reports the soil carbon
storage of urban parks in Helsinki to be 10,4 kg C / m2 (all soil types) and
15,5 kg C/ m2 in average for vegetated soils. Based on these figures the
soil carbon storage of case sites would be 42,6 t C (156,3 t CO2) in total,
which is more than double the sequestration by the planted trees during
50 years in the optimal scenario situation (73 t CO2). Furthermore, ac­
cording to Riikonen et al. (2017), the potential carbon loss during the
first decades for street trees was ~170 kg C / tree. For the 61 trees in the
case sites that would count for 10,4 t C (38 t CO2). In Riikonen’s study
the trees were planted in sealed soils, which prevents the organic matter
accumulation in the soil, which is typical for street trees, but not com­
mon in yards. The results illustrate that the impact of urban soils is
potentially large, but depends on several variables. However, we did not
find any studies made of urban soils in residential yards.
Furthermore, if the yard would be covered with concrete or granite
pavers, there would be virtually no C stocks in soil, due to the Finnish
standard construction practices (Lindén et al., 2020). The carbon release
of the pavement construction would be about 12 kg CO2 / m2 with
granite pavers (Finnish granite) (Finnish Natural Stone Association,
2018). For the whole vegetated area of the scenario designs the carbon
release would be about 33,9 t CO2 (9,2 t C). Assumed that the carbon
release of the construction phase of the vegetation would be compen­
sated in the long term, this would further highlight the impact of
vegetated areas.
4.3. Policy and practical implications
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the CSS potential of
residential yards. The findings highlight that the potential can be
significantly enhanced by three measures: (1) increasing the number of
9
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57 (2021) 126939
trees, (2) selecting tree species with a high ability to sequester carbon
and to grow large on the spots and (3) maximising the vegetated areas in
the yards and (4) adding biochar in the planting beds. Since practical
aspects in planning (such as the functionalities of yards) cause limita­
tions to how much and what sort of trees can be planted, the study
suggests that the carbon storage can be most effectively increased by
adding biochar to the growing medium. Moreover, considering that
urban soils are a major contributor to urban carbon storage, even
without added biochar, the study concludes that the most effective way
to increase urban carbon storage in new residential yards is to focus on
the quality and quantity of the topsoil that functions as a productive
growing medium for the plants.
Considering that biochar has the potential to improve soil quality
and thus to reduce the use of other planting soil materials, such as peat,
in planting soil mixtures, the true impact of biochar use could be even
higher (Kern et al., 2017). Biochar may improve the growing conditions
of soil microbes (Chan et al., 2008) and have other effects on soil pro­
cesses (Cheng et al., 2017) which may lead to increases in carbon bound
to organic matter in growing medium. On the other hand, trees exude
organic compounds from roots to soil (Scharenbroch et al., 2013), which
in turn affects microbial community and soil flora and fauna. Thus, the
interplay of trees, biochar and soil in carbon sequestration might in­
crease soil carbon more than their separate effects considered in this
study. However, some studies report that pyrolyses biochar is a highly
stabilized form of carbon and has negligible effects on soil biology
(Meschewski et al., 2019). Further research is needed on the long term
effects of biochar in urban soils.
The method of biochar production can affect its climate impacts. At
the city scale, it would be possible to collect the dead biomass generated
by urban green and produce biochar from it, thus creating a circular
system. The Stockholm Biochar Project provides a pioneering example
of such a system in practice (City of Stockholm, 2016: Jonsson, 2016).
With the biochar project, the city aims at generating the first urban
carbon sink in the world. The process produces energy that becomes
heat for the city’s district heating network. In Finland garden biochar is
produced commercially from broad leaved species, mainly birches, and
to a minor extent by cultivating willows on peatlands that have formerly
been used for turf production. The production will be growing in the
near future, and thus the availability and cost–benefit ratio of the
product will improve. Also, different types of biochar products are being
developed for different purposes.
The study concludes that CSS requires more attention in sustain­
ability planning tools, such as green factor and LEED. For example, more
weighting could be given for planting trees, especially tree species with
high carbon sequestration capability (in local conditions). In addition,
growing conditions should be considered to guarantee that the planted
trees can grow large. Moreover, using biochar to increase the carbon
storages of yards could function as an effective means. The results of the
study suggest the current CSS of residential sites could be increased as
much as 450 % by developing green planning so that it takes these as­
pects better into account. Moreover, the results illustrate that although
the impact of a single yard may be small, the scalability of the result has
the potential to amplify this impact.
In addition to the direct impacts on urban carbon sinks and storages,
increasing urban greenery may contribute to climate change mitigation
in indirect ways. Increased time use and economic activities in the green
infrastructure sector can potentially decrease highly carbon-intensive
activities such as the construction of grey infrastructure – assuming
M. Ariluoma et al.
constant time and monetary budgets. This can cause additional emission
reductions (the so-called negative rebound effect of green investments;
see Ottelin et al., 2018b).
The increasing of urban greenery is also likely to enhance the
perceived residential environmental quality (Kyttä et al., 2013). This
could possibly decrease the number of so-called escape trips from dense
urban areas to more natural environments and the related GHG emis­
sions (Reichert et al., 2016). Long-distance leisure travel is an increasing
source of emissions particularly in cities (see a review by Czepkiewicz
et al., 2018).
4.4. The limitations of the study
The study is based on modelling and thus includes high uncertainties
regarding the range that the results illustrate. The main uncertainties
relate to the used methods and the subjectivity of the scenario model­
ling. First, a screening LCA was used to find the most important life cycle
phases of urban greenery in private yards from the carbon storage
perspective. It is possible that the boundary selection excluded some
important carbon sources or storages (Brandão et al., 2013). For
example, the long-term interactions between soil and urban trees may
increase the carbon storage (Scharenbroch et al., 2013; Setälä et al.,
2016; Lindén et al., 2020), while the carbon losses of growth media
during the first decades after planting and intensive maintenance
practices may decrease it (Riikonen et al., 2017; McPherson et al.,
2015).
Second, a specific reference case was not modelled in the study. It
was assumed that the emissions from the construction and maintenance
of urban yards would be similar with or without vegetation, but this is in
fact unknown, and would require further research. For example, typical
urban pavement materials, such as stone and concrete, are highly carbon
intensive, suggesting that any alternatives for them could potentially
lead to emission savings. There are also big differences in the carbon
footprint of different materials, which means that comparison would
require modeling of several different cases.
Third, the i-Tree planting tool used in the study is developed for the
US, and thus Augusta, Maine, was applied as an approximation of the
weather conditions in Helsinki. As mentioned in the methods section,
this is likely to mildly overestimate the carbon sequestration ability of
urban trees in Helsinki. In addition, i-Tree equations do not have specific
equations for certain subspecies (such as an apple tree) of the case yards
and it uses approximations of species groups. Furthermore, the true sun
and shade conditions, as well as the true mortality rate of the trees, are
unknown. The selected 50-year time horizon affects the results as well.
Fourth, an expert opinion was used to estimate the possible amount of
biochar that could be added in growing medium. However, it was not
tested in practice. Similarly, the impact of biochar on both the condition
of the trees and tree mortality rate were not tested in practice. Fifth, the
scenario designs were based on subjective choices, although all the
relevant aspects and limitations were taken into account. While the
above-mentioned uncertainties exist, they are unlikely to affect the scale
of CSS assessed in the study or undermine the main conclusions.
4.5. Conclusions
Green infrastructure planning can improve ecosystem service pro­
vision and regulation, including carbon sequestration (Tratalos et al.,
2007; Niemelä et al., 2010). This study highlights the importance of
10
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57 (2021) 126939
urban green yards and their role in CSS. In particular, soil with added
biochar can be an effective method for increasing the carbon storage
potential. Moreover, urban trees can significantly contribute to the
carbon sequestration in the long run. The long lifespan of urban trees
should be guaranteed as the carbon sequestration capacity increases as
trees mature. This requires space for trees both in soil and on the ground
and favourable growing conditions which, in turn, accentuate the
quality and quantity of the topsoil. The quantity of topsoil correlates
with the potential for carbon sinkage, both in terms of trees and biochar,
and thus yards with a thick soil layer should be preferred.
Even though climate change adaptation and mitigation have been
addressed in green infrastructure planning, urban carbon storage po­
tential has remained largely understudied. Therefore, further research is
required to assess the CSS potential of urban green, including vegetation
and soil and their mutual interaction, as well as different materials and
production processes. Additionally, more efficient planning tools and
policies are needed in order to enhance the green infrastructure with the
maximum CSS potential. The study recommends that sustainability
planning tools should be developed in order to better address CSS po­
tential, with a special emphasis on the soil. This would lead to a
multiple-win situation as high-quality soil improves the quality of the
green infrastructure, which in turn has the capacity to provide several
ecosystem services. Even if single yards have a quite limited impact on
carbon storage, up-scaling to the city level would certainly significantly
increase the impact. Therefore, the study highlights the importance of
the mainstreaming of urban green infrastructure with a high CSS
capacity.
Author statement
Mari Ariluoma, as the first author, had the main responsibility for
writing and finalizing the manuscript and especially designed and per­
formed the scenario designs and analyzed results concerning them.
Juudit Ottelin, as the second author, created the research design
together with Ariluoma and performed the LCA study, conducted the i-
Tree analysis and analyzed results concerning them, in addition to
contributed to writing the manuscript.
Ranja Hautamäki, as the corresponding author, supervised the
research and contributed to writing and commenting the manuscript.
Eeva-Maria Tuhkanen and Miia Mänttäri reviewed and commented
on the manuscript
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors report no declarations of interest.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Aalto University’s Seed funding and by
Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland (CO-CARBON
335201; 335202; 336238). In addition, we would like to thank ViVa-
project funded by Nessling Foundation and RESTORE Cost Action for
inspiration.
Appendix A
Fig. A1
M. Ariluoma et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57 (2021) 126939

Fig. A1. Scenario design for Sienakuja, Fannynkallio ja Taidemaalarinkatu.

References Hagner, M., Kemppainen, R., Jauhiainen, L., Tiilikkala, K., Setälä, H., 2016. The effects of
birch (Betula spp.) biochar and pyrolysis temperature on soil properties and plant
growth. Soil Tillage Res. 163, 224–234.
Atkinson, C.J., Fitzgerald, J.D., Hipps, N.A., 2010. Potential mechanisms for achieving
Helsinki Region Trends, 2017. Current Review of Development in the Region 2017. https
agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. Plant Soil
://www.hel.fi/hel2/tietokeskus/julkaisut/pdf/17_04_05_Trends_2017_Erjansola.pdf.
337 (1), 1–18.
InfraRYL, 2010. Infrarakentamisen yleiset laatuvaatimukset. Päällys- ja pintarakenteet.
Brandão, M., Levasseur, A., Kirschbaum, M.U., Weidema, B.P., Cowie, A.L., Jørgensen, S.
(The General Quality Specifications for Infrastructure Construction in Finland).
V., Hauschild, M.Z., Pennington, D.W., Chomkhamsri, K., 2013. Key issues and
Rakennustieto RTS.
options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle
IUCN, 2019. Nature-based Solutions. https://www.iucn.org/commissions/commission-
assessment and carbon footprinting. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (1), 230–240.
ecosystem-management/our-work/nature-based-solutions.
Chan, K.Y., Van Zwieten, L., Meszaros, I., Downie, A., Joseph, S., 2008. Using poultry
Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F., van der Velde, M., Bastos, A., 2011. A quantitative review of the
litter biochars as soil amendments. Aust. J. Soil Res. 46 (5), 437–444.
effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis.
Cheng, J., Lee, X., Gao, W., Chen, Y., Pan, W., Tang, Y., 2017. Effect of biochar on the
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 144 (1), 175–187.
bioavailability of difenoconazole and microbial community composition in a
Jonsson, E., 2016. Slow Pyrolysis in Brista: an Evaluation of Heat and Biochar Production
pesticide-contaminated soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 121, 185–192.
in Sweden, Master’s Thesis. KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Churkina, G., Brown, D.G., Keoleian, G., 2010. Carbon stored in human settlements: the
Joss, S., 2015. Sustainable Cities: Governing for Urban Innovation. Macmillan
conterminous United States. Glob. Change Biol. 16 (1), 135–143.
International Higher Education, London, UK.
City of Stockholm, 2016. Biokol skapar ett effektivt kretslopp. City of Stockholm.
Juhola, S., 2018. Planning for a green city: the green factor tool. Urban For. Urban Green.
https://parker.stockholm/vaxter-djur/trad/biokol/.
34, 254–258.
Czepkiewicz, M., Heinonen, J., Ottelin, J., 2018. Why do urbanites travel more than do
Kaye, J.P., McCulley, R.L., Burke, I.C., 2005. Carbon fluxes, nitrogen cycling, and soil
others? A review of associations between urban form and long-distance leisure
microbial communities in adjacent urban, native and agricultural ecosystems. Global
travel. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (7), 073001.
Change Biol. 11 (4), 575–587.
Davies, Z.G., Edmondson, J.L., Heinemeyer, A., Leake, J.R., Gaston, K.J., 2011. Mapping
Keeley, M., Koburger, A., Dolowitz, D.P., Medearis, D., Nickel, D., Shuster, W., 2013.
an urban ecosystem service: quantifying above-ground carbon storage at a city-wide
Perspectives on the use of green infrastructure for stormwater management in
scale. J. Appl. Ecol. 48 (5), 1125–1134.
Cleveland and Milwaukee. Environ. Manage. 51 (6), 1093–1108.
Dhakal, S., 2010. GHG emissions from urbanization and opportunities for urban carbon
Kern, J., Tammeorg, P., Shanskiy, M., Sakrabani, R., Knicker, H., Kammann, C.,
mitigation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2 (4), 277–283.
Tuhkanen, E.-M., Smidt, G., Prasad, M., Tiilikkala, K., Sohi, S., Gasco, G., Steiner, C.,
EC, 2013. Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. COM/2013/
Glaser, B., 2017. Synergistic use of peat and charred material in growing media – an
0249 Final.
option to reduce the pressure on peatlands? J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manage. 25 (2),
EC, 2018. Nature-Based Solutions. EC’s Webpage. https://ec.europa.eu/research/enviro
160–174.
nment/index.cfm?pg=nbs.
Kirschbaum, M.U., 2006. Temporary carbon sequestration cannot prevent climate
Faivre, N., Fritz, M., Freitas, T., de Boissezon, B., Vandewoestijne, S., 2017. Nature-based
change. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 11 (5–6), 1151–1164.
solutions in the EU: innovating with nature to address social, economic and
Korhonen, R., Pingoud, K., Savolainen, I., Matthews, R., 2002. The role of carbon
environmental challenges. Environ. Res. 159, 509–518.
sequestration and the tonne-year approach in fulfilling the objective of climate
Gaunt, J.L., Lehmann, J., 2008. Energy balance and emissions associated with biochar
convention. Environ. Sci. Policy 5 (6), 429–441.
sequestration and pyrolysis bioenergy production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (11),
Kyttä, M., Broberg, A., Tzoulas, T., Snabb, K., 2013. Towards contextually sensitive
4152–4158.
urban densification: location-based softGIS knowledge revealing perceived
Ghosh, S., Yeo, D., Wilson, B., Ow, L., 2012. Application of char products improves urban
residential environmental quality. Landsc. Urban Plan. 113, 30–46.
soil quality. Soil Use Manage 28, 329–336.
Lähde, E., Di Marino, M., 2019. Multidisciplinary collaboration and understanding of
Golubiewski, N.E., 2006. Urbanization increases grassland carbon pools: effects of
green infrastructure. Results from the cities of Tampere, Vantaa and Jyväskylä
landscaping in Colorado’s Front Range. Ecol. Appl. 16 (2), 555–571.
(Finland). Urban For. Urban Green. 40 (April 2019), 63–72.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for
Lazarus, M., Chandler, C., Erickson, P., 2013. A core framework and scenario for deep
urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245.
GHG reductions at the city scale. Energy Policy 57, 563–574.
Haase, D., Jänicke, C., Wellmann, T., 2019. Front and back yard green analysis with
Levasseur, A., Brandão, M., Lesage, P., Margni, M., Pennington, D., Clift, R., Samson, R.,
subpixel vegetation fractions from earth observation data in a city. Landsc. Urban
2011. Valuing temporary carbon storage. Nat. Clim. Change 2 (1), 6.
Plan. 182 (February 2019), 44–54.

11
M. Ariluoma et al.
Lindén, L., Riikonen, A., Setälä, H., Yli-Pelkonen, V., 2020. Quantifying carbon stocks in
urban parks under cold climate conditions. Urban For. Urban Green. 49, 126633.
Liu, X., Zhang, A., Ji, C., Joseph, S., Bian, R., Li, L., Pan, G., Paz-Ferreiro, J., 2013.
Biochar’s effect on crop productivity and the dependence on experimental
conditions - a meta-analysis of literature data. Plant Soil 373 (1–2), 583–594.
Lorenz, K., Lal, R., 2015. Managing soil carbon stocks to enhance the resilience of urban
ecosystems. Carbon Manage. 6 (1–2), 35–50.
McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., 2002. A comparison of municipal forest benefits and
costs in Modesto and Santa Monica, California, USA. Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2),
61–74.
McPherson, E.G., Kendall, A., Albers, S., 2015. Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide
for different arboricultural practices in Los Angeles, CA. Urban For. Urban Green. 14
(2), 388–397.
Meschewski, E., Holm, N., Sharma, B.K., Spokas, K., Minalt, N., Kelly, J.J., 2019.
Pyrolysis biochar has negligible effects on soil greenhouse gas production, microbial
communities, plant germination, and initial seedling growth. Chemosphere 228,
565–576.
Morani, A., Nowak, D.J., Hirabayashi, S., Calfapietra, C., 2011. How to select the best
tree planting locations to enhance air pollution removal in the MillionTreesNYC
initiative. Environ. Pollut. 159 (5), 1040–1047.
Muñoz-Vallés, S., Cambrollé, J., Figueroa-Luque, E., Luque, T., Niell, F., Figueroa, M.,
2013. An approach to the evaluation and management of natural carbon sinks: from
plant species to urban green systems. Urban For. Urban Green. 12 (4), 450–453.
Niemelä, J., Saarela, S., Söderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Väre, S.,
Kotze, D.J., 2010. Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and
conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodivers. Conserv. 19
(11), 3225–3243.
Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., 2002. Carbon sequestration and storage by urban trees in the
USA. Environ. Pollut. 116 (3), 381–389.
Nowak, D.J., Kuroda, M., Crane, D.E., 2004. Tree mortality rates and tree population
projections in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Urban For. Urban Green. 2 (3), 139–147.
Nowak, D.J., Greenfield, E.J., Hoehn, R.E., Lapoint, E., 2013. Carbon sequestration and
storage by trees in urban and community areas of the United States. Environ. Pollut.
178, 229–236.
Ottelin, J., Heinonen, J., Junnila, S., 2018a. Carbon footprint trends of metropolitan
residents in Finland: how strong mitigation policies affect different urban zones.
J. Clean. Prod. 170, 1523–1535.
Ottelin, J., Heinonen, J., Junnila, S., 2018b. Carbon and material footprints of a welfare
state: why and how governments should enhance green investments. Environ. Sci.
Policy 86, 1–10.
Ottelin, J., Ala-Mantila, S., Heinonen, J., Wiedmann, T., Clarke, J., Junnila, S., 2019.
What can we learn from consumption-based carbon footprints at different spatial
scales? Review of policy implications. b Environ. Res. Lett. 14 (9), 093001.
Paloheimo, E., Salmi, O., 2013. Evaluating the carbon emissions of the low carbon city: a
novel approach for consumer based allocation. Cities 30, 233–239.
Pedro, J., Reis, A., Duarte Pinheiro, M., Silva, C., 2019. A systematic review of the
international assessment systems for urban sustainability. In: IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science, 323, 012076.
12
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57 (2021) 126939
Reichert, A., Holz-Rau, C., Scheiner, J., 2016. GHG emissions in daily travel and long-
distance travel in Germany–Social and spatial correlates”. Transp. Res. D Transp.
Environ. 49, 25–43.
Riikonen, A., Pumpanen, J., Mäki, M., Nikinmaa, E., 2017. High carbon losses from
established growing sites delay the carbon sequestration benefits of street tree
plantings - a case study in Helsinki, Finland. Urban For. Urban Green. 26, 85–94.
Roman, L.A., Battles, J.J., McBride, J.R., 2014. The balance of planting and mortality in a
street tree population. Urban Ecosyst. 17 (2), 387–404.
Roy, S., Byrne, J., Pickering, C., 2012. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree
benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones.
Urban For. Urban Green. 11 (4), 351–363.
Säynäjoki, A., Heinonen, J., Junnonen, J.-, Junnila, S., 2017. Input–output and process
LCAs in the building sector: are the results compatible with each other? Carbon
Manag. 8 (2), 155–166.
Scharenbroch, B., Meza, E., Catania, M., Fite, K., 2013. Biochar and biosolids increase
tree growth and improve soil quality for urban landscapes. J. Environ. Qual. 42,
1372–1385.
Setälä, H.M., Francini, G., Allen, J.A., Hui, N., Jumpponen, A., Kotze, D.J., 2016.
Vegetation type and age drive changes in soil properties, nitrogen and carbon
sequestration in urban parks under cold climate. Front. Ecol. Evol. 4.
Shigeto, S., Yamagata, Y., Ii, R., Hidaka, M., Horio, M., 2012. An easily traceable scenario
for 80% CO2 emission reduction in Japan through the final consumption-based CO2
emission approach: a case study of Kyoto-city. Appl. Energy 90 (1), 201–205.
Strohbach, M.W., Haase, D., 2012. Above-ground carbon storage by urban trees in
Leipzig, Germany: analysis of patterns in a European city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104
(1), 95–104.
Strohbach, M.W., Arnold, E., Haase, D., 2012. The carbon footprint of urban green space
- A life cycle approach. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104 (2), 220–229.
Tahvonen, O., Airaksinen, M., 2018. Low-density housing in sustainable urban planning
– scaling down to private gardens by using the green infrastructure concept. Land
Use Policy 75, 478–485.
The city of Helsinki, 2018. Developing a Green Factor Tool for the City of Helsinki
(Summary). Available online: http://ilmastotyokalut.fi/files/2014/11/Developing_
Helsinki_Green_Factor_Summary_13032014.pdf [Accessed 14.12.2018].
The USDA Forest Service, 2019. i-Tree Planting Tool. Available online: https://planting.
itreetools.org/ [Accessed 29.4.2019].
Tratalos, J., Fuller, R., Warren, P., Davies, R., Gaston, K., 2007. Urban form, biodiversity
potential and ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83, 308–317.
Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J.,
James, P., 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green
infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 81 (3), 167–178.
Urban Nature Atlas, 2020. NATURVATION, Project 2017-2019 by the EU Horizon.
https://naturvation.eu.
Velasco, E., Roth, M., Norford, L., Molina, L.T., 2016. Does urban vegetation enhance
carbon sequestration? Landsc. Urban Plan. 148, 99–107.